Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peejay

Global Poll Uncovers Psychic Shift on Immigration

26 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Global Poll Uncovers Psychic Shift on Immigration

by Rachel Marsden

Posted 08/07/2011 ET

A new global poll by Ipsos measuring citizens’ perception of immigration in 24 countries has just been released. Despite what politicians around the world would have their countrymen believe, the average person isn’t buying the benefits of current immigration policy.

The poll proves that our collective gut is indeed in line with reality: 80% of world citizens, from Russia and Brazil to America and India, feel that immigration has increased over the past five years, with 52% feeling it’s too much. Of respondents, 45% believe this immigration has a negative impact. This is legal, above-board immigration with which people are taking issue.

While politicians in America typically focus on the 12 million or so illegal immigrants, they often ignore that the country is taking in new legal immigrants at a rate of over a million every year.

America may have been built on immigration, but it wasn’t the kind of mass Third World immigration that we’ve been seeing over the past 40 years. The Left originally introduced the concept of Third World multiculturalism to America during the Lyndon Johnson presidency through the Democratic Party’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It was born of white guilt overkill in the shade of the Civil Rights Movement.

At the time, Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy said: “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. … The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

In the true final analysis, the new law opened the flood gates to exponentially more Third World immigrants than originally planned—and did it on the basis of “family reunification” rather than skill.

Before the new law, immigrants came overwhelmingly from Western European democracies and Canada. Afterward, Latin America and Asia dominated, while European immigration was reduced from 86% to a mere sliver of 13%.

The law led to an influx of new Democratic voters via immigration. Now, any politician wanting to land this growing immigrant vote—whether Democrat or Republican—had better find a way to pander to the idea of multiculturalism or, theoretically, risk alienating a major swath of voters. Ronald Reagan presided over near record levels of annual legal immigration, and George W. Bush was anything but tough on immigration, maintaining immigration levels from the very same countries against which we struggled ideologically in the aftermath of 9/11. No one wants to touch it.

The idea of any and all legal immigration being a net positive is something that has been deeply planted in the public conscience through leftist brainwashing and diversity promotion initiatives, typically starting in the public education system. If anything, the Ipsos poll finally proves this to be definitively true, with the most educated being the most supportive of immigration. Top-educated Canadians have the most positive view of immigration of anyone in the world. As a product of that system, I can personally vouch for the amount of multicultural and diversity peddling to which the average student is subjected in the absence of any counterpoint. This, despite the fact that the two founding factions of French and English Canadians haven’t managed to ever get along, even leading to a period of French nationalist terrorism, which has since been subdued by repeatedly buying off the French-Canadian province.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Ipsos survey—and most in conflict with current policy—is that 45% of people prefer skilled, educated immigrants over those who are simply there to do jobs the locals won’t do. And 48% still feel that immigrants take jobs from locals. Therefore, the survey would suggest that people only really feel protective of low-paying jobs. So future policy ought to focus on importing top talent and limiting low-level immigration—which is also a recipe for competitive success in the global economy. It would be a good place to start.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=45352


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peejay, we get it that the only good immigrant is a mail order bride.

What about mail order hubbies?


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A caucasian , European one at that. Not one of those muddled-color mail order brides, thank you.

You found one in Thailand? Funny place to find a white European.


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A caucasian , European one at that. Not one of those muddled-color mail order brides, thank you.

Shush you! You'll disturb all the old white gentry, leaning back in their La-Z-Boys on a Sunday morning, beneath that old photo of Ronald Reagan.


Our journey together on this earth has come to an end.

I will see you one day again, my love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shush you! You'll disturb all the old white gentry, leaning back in their La-Z-Boys on a Sunday morning, beneath that old photo of Ronald Reagan.

So what are you doing? Lounging on your setee under your shrine to Teddy-boy. The article must have hit a raw nerve when his quotes showed how much he lied. Should have been called the Lyin' of the senate instead of the Lion.


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of any and all legal immigration being a net positive is something that has been deeply planted in the public conscience through leftist brainwashing and diversity promotion initiatives, typically starting in the public education system. If anything, the Ipsos poll finally proves this to be definitively true, with the most educated being the most supportive of immigration. Top-educated Canadians have the most positive view of immigration of anyone in the world. As a product of that system, I can personally vouch for the amount of multicultural and diversity peddling to which the average student is subjected in the absence of any counterpoint. This, despite the fact that the two founding factions of French and English Canadians haven’t managed to ever get along, even leading to a period of French nationalist terrorism, which has since been subdued by repeatedly buying off the French-Canadian province.

She can "personally vouch for" that, huh? What a bunch of total BS malarkey.

I'll tell you what - I attended K-8, high school, and 4 years of university in Ottawa, Canada. A city, btw, that is 30% French and 70% English, and is right on the border of Ontario and Quebec. I have personal first-hand experience with French/English relations in Canada, and with the educational system there. And I can "personally vouch to you" that your author is talking out of her azzhole. Now who's "personal vouching" do you want to take for setting the USA's immigration policy? Hers or mine? Hint: Neither. That's not how we decide our issues or set our policy here, right?

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Ipsos survey—and most in conflict with current policy—is that 45% of people prefer skilled, educated immigrants over those who are simply there to do jobs the locals won’t do. And 48% still feel that immigrants take jobs from locals.

Yeah, you'll get similar poll numbers for people who believe Obama was not born in the US, or for the existence of UFOs, or that Kennedy wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. So what? Many Americans are easily deluded and believe things that are simply untrue, and polls regularly express this. No shite sherlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are you doing? Lounging on your setee under your shrine to Teddy-boy. The article must have hit a raw nerve when his quotes showed how much he lied. Should have been called the Lyin' of the senate instead of the Lion.

Well, I'll wager you a tenner that we are both sitting in our houses with our immigrant spouses.

Maybe they shouldn't have been admitted?


Our journey together on this earth has come to an end.

I will see you one day again, my love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a bit over 1MM immigrants a year. That number is added to the over 300MM citizens and residents. And we are to believe that that is a lot. Much more than this country historically absorbed. Never mind that back in the early 20th century when US population stood at 75MM, we had years where we took in over 1MM immigrants. Historically, the US population grew by roughly 30%-40% every 10 years in the 19th century. It grew 10%-20% every decade over the course of the 20th century and is not growing at clips <10%. This reduced growth rate is owed not exclusively but at least partially to decreased rather than increased immigration rates. But why bother with facts?

Edited by Mr. Big Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll wager you a tenner that we are both sitting in our houses with our immigrant spouses.

Maybe they shouldn't have been admitted?

Is that a question or your speculation?

Anyway, comparing a US citizen bringing their spouse to live with them in the citizen's own country to chain migration of foreigners is about like comparing a platypus to a grape.


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a bit over 1MM immigrants a year. That number is added to the over 300MM citizens and residents. And we are to believe that that is a lot. Much more than this country historically absorbed. Never mind that back in the early 20th century when US population stood at 75MM, we had years where we took in over 1MM immigrants. Historically, the US population grew by roughly 30%-40% every 10 years in the 19th century. It grew 10%-20% every decade over the course of the 20th century and is not growing at clips <10%. This reduced growth rate is owed not exclusively but at least partially to decreased rather than increased immigration rates. But why bother with facts?

Which immigration facts should we bother with and in what context are we supposed to take yours? So you think just because the US imported slaves in the 19th century that we ought to be doing that today too? Do you think that 19th century America is just like 21st century America? Great stats, but what do they prove?


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a question or your speculation?

Anyway, comparing a US citizen bringing their spouse to live with them in the citizen's own country to chain migration of foreigners is about like comparing a platypus to a grape.

Um.

I thought chain migration usually begins with one family member. Usually a spouse.


Our journey together on this earth has come to an end.

I will see you one day again, my love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great stats, but what do they prove?

That immigration into this country is declining relative to the size of the population. That's what they prove. Seeing that our population is increasingly aging, we'd need more rather than less immigration to keep things moving along. Does that mean that our current immigration policy is good? No, it doesn't. We should turn to skill-based immigration. Give the economy what it needs - skilled and educated labor. And then do a lot more of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×